Pages

Saturday, 8 December 2012

Role of IMTech and IISER Directors in NIPER Registrar Recrutement are also questionable

Mohali: The Punjab Harayana High Court set aside the selection and appointment of P. J. P. Singh Waraich as registrar of NIPER. The court passed the judgment while allowing a petition filed by Dr. Parikshit Bansal and Dr. Neeraj Kumar, Asst Professors, NIPER, challenging the appointment. This judgement not only shade light on NIPER malpractices but also questions integrity of directors of IMTech and IISER

"At that stage, the Selection Committee, some of the members of which were part of the Screening Committee, very well in the knowledge of the educational qualifications and the experience of the short listed candidates which were merely 7 in number. Meaning thereby they knew as to how many marks one can get for educational qualification and the experience." As per the judgement Screening committee members are 1) Prof. KK Bhutani, Director, NIPER (Chairman); 2) Prof. N. Sathyamurthy, Director, IISER, S.A.S. Nagar; 3) Dr. Girish Sahani, Director, IMTECH, Chandigarh.

As per the Hindustan times report, “Bhutani had extracted R20 lakh from Waraich and had interviewed him in May. Waraich had then been appointed despite the fact that Waraich did not meet the requisite qualifications of eligibility for the post of Registrar at NIPER, Mohali.”Now question remains why Prof. N. Sathyamurthy, Director, IISER, S.A.S. Nagar; 3) Dr. Girish Sahani, Director, IMTECH, Chandigarh recommended and selected a unqualified person for the post of NIPER Registrar? Who shared Rs. 20 lakhs only chairman or..........?

One NIPER Faculty member made the following observation on the selection of Wing Cdr. P.J.P. Singh Waraich (Retd.) as Registrar, NIPER:

1. At page 10, Sr. no. 20, Respondent no. 3 was having three third divisions in Matric, Higher secondry and B. com.

5. At page 19, Sr. No. 35, The criteria was determined by the selection committee on 09.06.2011, the date on which the interview was to take place. At that stage, the Selection Committee, some of the members of which were part of the Screening Committee, very well in the knowledge of the educational qualifications and the experience of the short listed candidates which were merely 7 in number. Meaning thereby they knew as to how many marks one can get for educational qualification and the experience.

6. Sr. 36-48 at page 20-23 describes the arbitrariness in the screening and selection process.

7. At page 23, Sr. No. 48 As far as the marks awarded by the Selection Committee in the interview are concerned, as the same are in terms of satisfaction of the Interview Committee, this court is not in a position to opine thereon. But the fact remains that there were four members of the Selection Committee, if they had interviewed the candidates they must have been given separate sheets for the assessment of each candidate. The record as to how each of the candidate was assessed by each member of the Selection Committee individually, has not been produced.

8. Sr. No. 50 at page 23-24 describes as “xxxxxxx. However, as the facts of the case suggest the exercise for equation of post held by the candidates, which were different than those mentioned in the advertisement for the purpose of experience, has not been done in the present case. The number of candidates were having experience working on different posts. The Screening or the Selection Committee was required to apply mind and on the basis of the para-meters laid down for equation of posts should have taken a conscious decision to hold a candidate eligible or ineligible for consideration. The exercise having not been done, it cannot be termed that respondent No. 3 was eligible for the post.

9. Sr. No. 51 at page 24 describes as “There is no material placed even before this court except the bio-data submitted by respondent No. 3 himself. It cannot be termed that whatever claimed by respondent No. 3 in his application should have been considered as a true statement in the absence of a certificate from the employer. In fact, as is evident from the record, the appointing authority in the present case was misled while considering the entire service career of twenty three years of respondent No. 3 as relevant experience and awarded the marks accordingly, whereas in the written statement, it stated that respondent No. 3 was having 16 years experience on a gazetted post. Even the record, which was prepared at the time of scrutiny of the application shows that it was mentioned therein that the experience of respondent No. 3 is 'not O.K.' as the experience certificate is not attached. There is no experience certificate produced on record by respondent No. 3 even upto the date of interview. The selection was being made to the post of responsibility. Casualness in the process could not be expected, as is evident from the case in hand.

Finally

"For the reasons mentioned above, the selection and appointment of respondent no. 3 on the post of Registrar is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."